Miracle House Corp. v. Haige
Citation | 96 So.2d 417 |
Parties | MIRACLE HOUSE CORPORATION, Appellant, v. Agnes HAIGE, Lander Haige, Enar Haige, Allan Haige, and George K. Kickliter, Receiver, Appellees. |
Decision Date | 10 July 1957 |
Court | Florida Supreme Court |
Holland, Betts & Hobson, St. Petersburg, for appellant.
Wm. C. Kaleel and Luke R. Kaleel, St. Petersburg, for appellees.
The sole issue here is the propriety of the lower court's order denying the petition of appellant to intervene in a cause therein pending in which the appellees were contesting their respective rights in and to certain property.
Rule 3.4, Fla.Rules Civ.Proc.1954, 31 F.S.A., provides that 'Anyone claiming an interest in pending litigation may at any time be permitted to assert his right by intervention, but the intervention shall be in subordination to, and in recognition of, the propriety of the main proceeding, unless otherwise ordered by the court in its discretion.' This rule is derived from Equity Rule 9, which was the same as Sec. 9 of the Chancery Act, Sec. 63.09, Fla.Stat.1949, F.S.A. In construing the statute from which the rule derived, this court said in Morgareidge v. Howey, 1918, 75 Fla. 234, 78 So. 14, 15, that
Here, the appellant had a very real interest in a parcel of the property in litigation by virtue of a contract of purchase and sale thereof executed in its favor by one of the appellees. The determination of the rights of the appellees would have a direct effect on the rights of the appellant under its contract. All the parties and the res were before the court; and in view of the aim of the rules to allow liberal joinder of parties and claims and the policy of equity to grant complete relief and avoid a multiplicity of suits, we think the lower court had full authority to allow the intervention and decide the issue therein made. See Switow v. Sher, 1939, 136 Fla. 284, 186 So. 519, 525, holding that an intervenor's cross-bill raising a new issue is proper 'where some special circumstances such as...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Vanguard Ins. Co. v. Townsend
...lose by the legal operation and effect of the judgment. Morgareidge v. Howey, 75 Fla. 234, 78 So. 14 (Fla.1918); Miracle House Corporation v. Haige, 96 So.2d 417 (Fla.1957); Citibank, N.A., v. Blackhawk Heating & Plumbing Company, Inc., 398 So.2d 984 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981). This is because, al......
-
Jefferson Realty of Fort Lauderdale, Inc. v. U.S. Rubber Co.
...the appellant. To like effect is Robert L. Weed, Architect, Inc. v. Horning, 1947, 159 Fla. 847, 33 So.2d 648, and Miracle House Corporation v. Haige, Fla.1957, 96 So.2d 417. In the last cited case this Court held that it is the aim of the Rules of Civil Procedure to allow liberal joinder o......
-
Castro Convertible Corp. v. Castro
...part thereof, or a claim to, or lien upon, the property or some part thereof, which is the subject of litigation." Miracle House Corp. v. Haige, 96 So.2d 417, 418 (Fla.1957), Quoting Morgareidge v. Howey, 75 Fla. 234, 78 So. 14, 15 (1918). In other words the interest in the litigation must ......
-
Pollekoff v. Blumenthal
...of that interest could not be assured by the existing parties. We believe that it had a right to intervene. See Miracle House Corporation v. Haige, 96 So.2d 417 (Fla.1957). Propriety of The Pollekoffs mount a number of interrelated challenges to what the court did. Because the receivers had......